Pope Leo XIV’s clash with the Trump White House has opened a narrow window for a historic peace push, according to conservative voices who see a chance to use diplomatic and economic pressure to confront Iran and Islamist terror.

Pope Leo XIV and the Trump White House have sparred publicly this month, with the Pope sharply criticizing the President’s actions in Iran. The pushback came from the White House and other allies, and the administration has had its defenders speak up forcefully. That public friction sets the stage for a larger debate about the Vatican’s role in global security.

The President fired back, of course, as did Vice President Vance and Border Czar Tom Homan. Conservatives argue that a strong, consistent stance against regimes that sponsor terror is both moral and pragmatic. Scott Jennings weighed in by pointing to historical precedent where religious leadership teamed with political muscle to change the course of history.

Scott Jennings also reminded Pope Leo that he could follow in the footsteps of Pope John Paul II, who — along with Ronald Reagan — helped bring about the fall of communism.

It’s worth a listen.

“There’s a tremendous opportunity here for this pope,” Jennings said, “if he would look at it this way. We’re in the middle of a ceasefire. This blockade is working. There are no bombs falling. There’s diplomacy going on right now. And there is a real chance, because of what Trump has done and the situation we find ourselves in, for the world to bring pressure, economic pressure, and diplomatic pressure, just like what was done in the 80s, to bear against this terrorist regime. Just like it was brought to bear against the soviets in the 1980s.”

Jennings pushed the point further, urging the Vatican to treat the moment as a partnership opportunity rather than a rebuke. “I get the feeling sometimes the pope might be feeling a little adversarial, at least in some of his comments toward President Trump,” Jennings continued, “I don’t know that personally. It’s my sense of it. But in this moment, where you have — there’s no bombs falling right now. There’s a blockage. There’s some restraint going on, and there’s talks going on. This to me is a moment where you could have a partnership for peace in a way that brings this terrorist regime that, by the way, has been at war with the West for nearly 50 years, to its knees.

Perhaps the Vatican will step up and press for a principled, strategic campaign that combines moral clarity with real pressure. From a Republican perspective, that approach is the sensible path: use the leverage this pause provides to isolate and weaken an enemy that funds terror and threatens regional stability. The comparison to the 1980s is not accidental; those years showed how aligned moral leadership and American toughness can change regimes.

That was the quietest we’ve ever heard them.

There is a clear and present danger in letting the nuclear ambitions and terror networks of Iran go unchecked, and critics say the Vatican’s rhetoric has been muted on that front. The regime in Tehran has been tied to attacks that have killed Americans and fueled instability across the Middle East over decades. Allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear arsenal would put cities across Europe and the region, including Rome and the Vatican, at existential risk.

Conservatives argue the moral case for confronting Iran is straightforward: protecting innocent lives, standing with oppressed peoples inside Iran, and denying Islamist radicals the means to project power. This is not about warmongering; it is about preventing a worse war by applying diplomatic and economic tools when the situation favors pressure over escalation. If the Vatican chooses to join that effort, history may record it as a decisive and constructive move.

For now, the debate rolls on in public and in private, with the Pope, American leaders, and global capitals testing how much pressure can be mustered without reigniting open conflict. The moment is fragile and rare, but it is real. The question remains whether spiritual authority and political resolve will converge to push a dangerous regime toward surrender or reform, or whether missed opportunities will let threats grow unchecked.